Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Do you understand, before President Biden was elected, that that was common practice--that a unanimous consent request was all that was necessary to approve a U.S. attorney?

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator aware--I am not going to ask this question. I know you know the answer as well as I do. I will just state, generally, that the people who were involved in the prosecution of former President Trump were attorneys appointed to that position by President Trump.

Mr. DURBIN. And a special counsel, separate and apart from the Department of Justice, was independently making those decisions. Your decision to stop U.S. attorneys from taking these jobs means that they will not be in a position to be able to prosecute individuals of either political party who are guilty of criminal wrongdoing. Do you understand that?

Mr. DURBIN. So I am going to make a unanimous consent request consistent with the statement that you just made. I have listened to it carefully. I don't know if you have been given a copy, but I want to make sure you understand.

Mr. DURBIN. No, and you are not expected to. But if individual Senators have an objection to moving forward on a nomination and they know a unanimous consent request is going to be made on the floor, it is their responsibility to be present physically. You can't mail it in.

Mr. DURBIN. So even if you got your way, even if you got a rollcall vote, which you have asked for twice now, you are still not going to allow us to move to fill these vacancies for U.S. attorneys, even in Ohio?

Mr. DURBIN. That is what I am going to request right now, so you can decide whether you are going to go along with it or object. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 129, 314, 315, and 266; that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, on each nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there again, I just gave him what he asked for, and he said it wasn't enough. He has to have every other Senator come to the floor and agree to this. Let me say that this is a unanimous consent request for four U.S. attorneys who have gone through the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Senator Padilla and I serve on. They went through that bipartisan committee, and they have been reported to the floor. This is customary, ordinary. There is nothing controversial about these individuals, but still and all not good enough. He has objected to even having a vote later in the day on the very nominations that he asked for earlier. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to vote no against these nominees under any condition, make it clear. To say you want to clear it with every other Senator, they have been given notice of this unanimous consent request. They could be here on the floor if they wanted to object personally. To my knowledge, this junior Senator from Ohio is the only one objecting, and it is a shame he is because these U.S. attorneys are needed desperately in California, Mississippi, Ohio, and my home State of Illinois. And to think that what we are going through is to the point at which a Congressman who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee came to Chicago to hold a hearing this week to outline how much trouble we have with violent crime. We do have problems with violent crime. We certainly need a U.S. attorney, who is one of the persons up for this nomination, to do her best to make sure that we have a safer community in Chicago. How can she do it if she can't clear the Senate floor? I hope the Senator will get it straight as to what exactly he is trying to achieve here. If he wanted a rollcall vote, I just offered to it him, and it wasn't good enough. I am going to be returning regularly to the floor to make this unanimous consent request. Sadly, during the period of time that we debate this, crime will continue to be committed in Ohio, in Illinois, in Mississippi, and in California that, in many instances, could have been avoided if the Senate, on a regular dispatch approach, decided to move these nominations forward as they have been traditionally. To say that you want the Department of Justice to grind to a halt in the United States of America, come on. That is the kind of statement you make in a speech, come back later, and say: Well, I didn't mean that exactly. Certainly, no one means that exactly. We don't want the Department of Justice to stop its fight against narcotics and fentanyl in the United States that are claiming thousands of lives, and slowing down that process here on the Senate floor is just unacceptable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding rule XXII, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 129 and 266; that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, for each nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for those who are following this debate, we had four nominations that were being held. Two were just approved. We will keep working to make sure all four are approved. The two remaining are in the States of Illinois and Ohio. We feel just as intensely about those vacancies as all the others, but we are seizing the moment to order a rollcall vote on the two that have been approved by both sides. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to join the Republican leader, as well as the Democratic leader, with our hopes that we can still rescue the situation on Capitol Hill before the deadline. We have an impending government shutdown that is only 5 days away. The House Republicans on the other side of the Rotunda have not taken on their responsibility at this moment, and we are doing our best on a bipartisan basis to do the opposite. Extreme factions of the Republican Party continue to list their demands for reckless cuts and partisan proposals in exchange for keeping the lights on in the Federal Government. In doing so, their radical agenda is holding the livelihood of the American people and the proper functioning of our government hostage. House Republicans' proposals, which some of their own Members don't even agree with, would cut millions of dollars from public health, childcare, education, food safety, law enforcement, housing, and more. These cuts would create uncertainty for hard-working families across the country, and they would put our national security and economic well-being at risk. Instead of negotiating in good faith, House Republicans are willing to put the country through the pain of a shutdown. Now, we have had shutdowns before. I remember them well--2013, 2018, and now the threat of one in 2023. It appears to be a 5-year cycle. The shutdowns in 2013 and 2018 reduced economic output and GDP growth by projections in the billions. They forced Federal employees to go without checks, to either work without pay or be furloughed, and that included our military at the time. Servicemembers would not be paid until Congress funds the government. That would mean missed paychecks and strained household budgets for the duration of a shutdown, until extreme MAGA Republicans felt their demands had been met. Take one Agency for example--the National Institutes of Health, the premier medical research Agency in the world. They would have to delay new clinical trials during a government shutdown, stalling critical medical research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. A shutdown would halt training of 2,600 air traffic controllers at a time when our country desperately needs them, and the air traffic controllers already on the job would have to work without pay. How would you like to have the pressure of that job and in the back of your mind wonder if you are going to make your mortgage payment? That would potentially lead to delays, longer wait times for those traveling, as we have seen in past shutdowns. The same goes for TSA. The shutdown would delay major infrastructure projects that were created by the bipartisan infrastructure bill. It could jeopardize the benefits of more than 6 million American participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Children, and Infants, including 170,000 in my home State of Illinois. Public housing operations and housing choice voucher subsidies could be at risk of running out of funding. A shutdown could deplete relief funds and slow emergency responses in the case of natural disasters. We have seen evidence of plenty of those. In short, it would be nothing less of a disaster for the economy and for American families for this handful of MAGA Republicans to stop the funding of our government. Here in the Senate, we have taken a bipartisan approach to the task of keeping our government funded. I have served on the Senate Appropriations Committee for a number of years, and I have watched carefully as the procedure of that committee--one of the most important committees in the Senate--has changed. For the last almost 5 years, we have gone without a meaningful, bipartisan effort to write budget bills, and we have taken from the Members the opportunity on the floor of the Senate to actually review those bills and make amendments. It is our good fortune that the leaders in the Senate Appropriations Committee currently are two of the best. One of the best Democratic Senators and legislators, Patty Murray, of Washington, chairs the Appropriations Committee. Her ranking Republican member, Susan Collins, of Maine, is another extraordinary legislator. What they managed to achieve so far in the Appropriations Committee is a tribute not only to their skill but also a tribute to bipartisanship. They have reported out all 12 appropriations bills to the floor of the U.S. Senate for consideration on the floor for the first time in 5 years. Instead of a massive package called an omnibus, they were leading us toward individual appropriations bills and an amendment process on the floor we haven't seen for a long, long time. Unfortunately, it was set aside by one Republican Member last week, but we haven't given up on the notion of making this bipartisan. I heard earlier a statement made by the Democratic leader in the Senate that there were negotiations through the weekend for a temporary spending bill. I hope that spirit continues when it comes to the appropriations bills. I am sure with Senators Murray and Collins working on it, we have a good possibility. Now we recognize, more than ever before, the need to keep the lights on in Washington on Capitol Hill. This week is going to be our test. What must be top of mind in any compromise is keeping the Federal employees paid, their families fed, keep the economy moving forward, keep our affairs in order so that our adversaries know that the United States of America can actually fund its own government. That is why here in the Senate we are going to consider a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the government open at current funding levels while we work toward a longer term answer. Instead of considering a similar, serious short-term proposal to prevent a shutdown, some House Republicans are now trying to consider 11 individual appropriations bills before Sunday. Let me tell you, the track record doesn't look so good. Speaker McCarthy has already pulled down more than one vote on the defense spending bill, despite the fact his own party actually drafted the bill. They drafted the bill, then they couldn't pass it with their own members of the House. I am not sure what his plan is. But in the Senate, ours is to prevent a government shutdown and have an orderly process of spending bills considered by the Senate. We owe it to every American family to do our jobs and to do it in a timely, respectful manner. I urge my colleagues in the House to put the needs, well-being, and livelihood of Americans above any partisan loyalty. I am committed to working with my colleagues to prevent a shutdown. I look forward to the Senate considering a continuing resolution that does just that. United Auto Workers Strike Mr. President, on a separate topic, I heard my colleague earlier, Senator Schumer, talk about visiting a picket line for the United Auto Workers this morning. I did the same thing yesterday morning in Bolingbrook, IL, where UAW local warehouse workers were out on the line drinking coffee and eating a few donuts, holding their signs that said ``solidarity'' with their union. I wanted to walk over there and be with them at this moment. You have to understand, when a worker like a UAW worker goes on strike, they are really walking away from their regular paycheck and receiving emergency pay from the unions, which, historically, has never quite been the same or as much. The same thing is true when it comes to the medical benefits. They may lose the coverage they had in the workplace and have the union program that is an alternative that doesn't provide the same level of benefits. What I am trying to get to is the bottom line is, these strikes are personal, and families sacrifice on behalf of the workers. Why would they do that? Why would they walk off the job, stand in the cold or outside weather from time to time like this? Because there is more at stake than their own personal well-being. They are fighting not only for their fellow members of the union, they are fighting for working people all over the United States. The organized labor movement--which I was happy to be a childhood union family growing up--really made a difference in the life of America. The 40-hour work week, overtime, vacation, healthcare benefits, pension--virtually every one of those elements that are part of a modern job--a good modern job--were fought for and sometimes died for by those who were working in the labor movement in the earliest stage. The UAW is a good example. It was back in the forties when a young fellow named Walter Reuther decided to make the UAW a viable force in Detroit, MI. There was the famous confrontation at a River Rouge plant where the UAW workers were on strike and violence broke out. Some people were seriously injured. Those sacrifices were made, and America changed as a result of it. Now the modern struggle of the UAW is not unlike that of the forties. The President of the UAW, Mr. Fain, came by my office several times to talk about his goals. He made it clear--and we all knew the answer-- that when it came to the question of the survival of these automobile makers in 2008 when the economy plunged, it was the workers who stood up and said: We will make sacrifices and changes so that these companies can survive. Some people, even those on the floor of the Senate, were arguing: Let them go. That is capitalism. There are winners and losers. But President Obama and I and many others felt just the opposite. Automobile manufacturing is a critical part of the American economy. President Obama was determined to keep those companies alive during that period of time. UAW did its part, and it did it well. They sacrificed wages and benefits. They said that the new workers would get paid dramatically less than those who had been there for years, and they literally saved those companies. Now those companies are profitable to the tune of billions of dollars a year. What the UAW is saying is, for goodness' sake, make sure the workers are part of the success. Don't let them read in the papers how much the company is making while they are breaking their backs to make the products that are successful. That is what the strike is all about. There was a time not that long ago in the early sixties when the executives of automobile companies and similar corporations were making about 30 times the wages of those who were working on production lines. Now the number is 500 times. The three executives who lead the automobile manufacturers all make over $20 million a year, each and every one of them. I believe the one from General Motors makes $29 million a year. Meanwhile, the wages for the executives have gone up 40 percent in the last 5 years and for the workers, 6 percent. So there is a disparity there that needs to be addressed and done fairly. We want to make sure that the companies are profitable--they build products we are proud of. But we want to make sure the workers who are sacrificing every single day share in that profitability, share in that productivity. And they can do it if they are part of the contract that is now being negotiated. I was out there on the line for about a half hour yesterday, standing along with the workers and encouraging the workers to be strong during this period. It is a time of personal sacrifice, but it is well worth it, not only for sisters and brothers in the union but workers all over America who prosper with the achievements made by the UAW. I am proud to have had their support over the years, and I am proud to stand with them in this time of challenge. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mrs. Smith), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, most Americans agree that the cost of prescription drugs is too high. Most Americans agree that President Biden has done the right thing by reducing the monthly cost of insulin to $35 so that millions of people facing diabetes can afford their medication. Most Americans agree that it is almost impossible to explain why American drug companies sell the same drugs in Canada for a fraction of the cost they charge American consumers. Most Americans agree that the pharmaceutical companies should be able to take advantage of basic research by Agencies like the National Institutes of Health but, when it comes to their profit-making, they ought to be reasonable with the American taxpayers, who started them down the road to a successful product. Most Americans also agree that the No. 1 driver in the cost of health insurance premiums is the cost of prescription drugs. BlueCross BlueShield of Chicago has told me as much. It stands to reason. That is why it is very difficult to understand the statement just made by the Republican leader in the Senate, who is suggesting that the idea of negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies so that Medicare, for example, doesn't pay the highest price for drugs isn't a reasonable thing. What I heard from the Republican leader was this was prescription drug socialism--socialism--that we would go to the private sector and say: Lifesaving drugs should be affordable. You are entitled to a profit, but you are not entitled to rip off taxpayers or consumers across America. That seems like a reasonable approach. In fact, it seems so reasonable that someone suggested we do that for our veterans years ago. The Veterans' Administration has been negotiating prescription drug pricing for years. What the Senator from Kentucky refers to as ``unelected bureaucrats'' are the officials of the Veterans' Administration who, on behalf of the veterans and their families, sit down at a table and negotiate a reasonable cost so that veterans will always have those drugs available to them and the government will pay not the highest price but a reasonable price for the product. That has been going on for decades, and I don't recall any Republican--or Democrat, for that matter--who stood before the Senate or the House and said: That is a bad idea. The Veterans' Administration ought to pay a much higher price for drugs, and taxpayers ought to foot the difference. The reason you don't hear that is it doesn't make sense. We should be able to negotiate reasonable pricing for pharmaceutical drugs in Medicare, just as we do in the Veterans' Administration. That is what President Biden has suggested. If you took a look at the top 10 drugs that the Medicare system is buying across America, not surprisingly, these drugs, which have tongue-twister names, are familiar to most Americans. Why? The pharmaceutical companies have put so many ads on television for the drug Xarelto that we can not only pronounce it but we can spell it. And Xarelto, of course, is a drug that appeals to many people but certainly to senior citizens. Now, for the record, there are only two nations in the world that allow television advertising of pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand, of all places. So why do the pharmaceutical companies spend more money on television advertising and marketing than they do on research to find new drugs and cures? Well, they do that because they make money at it. They are trying to reach American consumers--in this case, senior citizens--and convince them, the next time they go for a doctor's appointment, to ask for one of these drugs. Now, the doctor may decide to counsel the person that that drug is not appropriate for the challenges of the medical situation they face. He may say there is a generic that is much cheaper, and he may try to talk them out of the idea. But, after some time, the doctors usually give in to the patients. They have a limited amount of time to debate with them, and they have got to move on to another patient. And so the high-priced prescription drug advertised on television is then sold to the senior citizen. And as a result, the taxpayers, through Medicare, pay for a large portion of that high-priced drug. That is an unfortunate system, but it is very profitable for the pharmaceutical companies. So to call this socialism is to ignore the obvious. We want Americans to have access to affordable, effective drugs, whether they are buying them as private citizens or through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. What the President has said is: I should take my authority as President, given to me by Congress with a measure that received only Democratic votes, and negotiate drug prices down to an affordable level--for the government and for individuals. Some may call that ``prescription drug socialism.'' I call it common sense. We should protect American consumers from high-priced prescription drugs. Why the Republican leader takes the opposite position is his business, but I think most Americans believe it is a reasonable approach. Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar Mr. President, on a separate issue, I rise today to discuss the critical role that U.S. attorneys play in keeping America and our communities safe. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have come to the floor to request unanimous consent to take up and confirm U.S. attorney nominations. Across the United States, men and women are chosen to head U.S. Attorney Offices through the Department of Justice. It is a major responsibility. I have seen many U.S. attorneys in my lifetime and my time in the Senate, and I know them to be carefully screened before they reach this level. They go through background checks--extensive background checks--to make certain there are no questions about their background before they are appointed to this position. They then go through the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, which I chair, carefully screened by both Democrats and Republicans. Then they are voted on in the committee and sent to the floor here for approval. Unfortunately, we have run into an obstacle. Last year, we went through an exercise twice when a Republican Senate colleague refused to allow the Senate to confirm nearly 12 Justice Department nominees by voice vote, which is the typical approach used under Presidents of both political parties. Thankfully, the Senator involved in that particular issue lifted his objections in time for these 12 to be appointed to U.S. attorney posts across the United States. We were able to get the U.S. attorneys and marshals confirmed and in place so they could go to work. And, thank goodness, we did. Unfortunately, here we stand again today, finding ourselves in a position where a single Senator objects to the timely confirmation of U.S. attorney nominees. In short, one Senator--one Senator--is making it more difficult for us to put women and men in the position of U.S. attorney for the prosecution of violent criminals, tracking down fugitives, and protecting Americans from gang violence, cyber crime, terrorism, narcotics, and fraud. It is an awesome job to be U.S. attorney because of the possibilities of all of the vulnerabilities of American citizens. Remember when extreme voices were crying out ``defund the police''? We knew better as Americans. Sure, reform is appropriate, but we need the police, just as we need prosecutors--criminal prosecutors. Now, we have one Senator who has decided to stop this effort at criminal prosecution by these new U.S. attorneys. It is worth taking a moment to think about what U.S. attorneys do. The position of U.S. attorney is nearly as old as the Nation. It was created as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was passed by the first Congress and signed into law by President George Washington. U.S. attorneys are empowered to prosecute all Federal criminal offenses; and we have recognized, since the founding of America, that they are an integral part of our justice system. U.S. attorneys play a critical role in enforcing the law, promoting public safety, protecting our communities. Blocking the confirmations of U.S. attorneys threatens public safety and puts many Americans and their families, including the most vulnerable among us, at greater risk. Why would we knowingly want to put our families that we represent in States across America at greater risk by holding up the employment of U.S. attorneys? Now, we have heard a lot of tough talk about law and order from a lot of Senators. But when it comes to law and order, we shouldn't allow one Senator to prevent us from confirming well-qualified law enforcement nominations today. This Senator has vowed to ``grind the Department of Justice to a halt.'' Let me repeat that. This Senator has vowed to ``grind the Department of Justice to a halt.'' And all of this because of why? He is upset that special counsel Jack Smith has indicted the former President of the United States on multiple felonies. This is a protest, a political protest, for an action taken by a special counsel. But he is doing it at the expense of families all across America. Let me repeat that. A Member of this body is undermining our government's efforts to prosecute violent crimes, terrorism, and crimes against children because he does not like it that one of his political allies is being held accountable for his actions. He is doing so despite the fact that these are exceptional--exceptional--nominees for U.S. attorneys, and there is no principled basis to delay their confirmation. Let me describe some of these U.S. attorneys who are being held up by this one Republican Senator. Todd Gee, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, is dedicated to the rule of law and longtime career in public service. A native of Vicksburg, MS, Mr. Gee attended George Washington University and Tulane Law School. He spent several years as an assistant U.S. attorney right here in the District of Columbia. He prosecuted homicides, carjackings, and gun crimes. In one case, he was the lead prosecutor in securing the convictions for seven members of a deadly street gang that had been indicted for multiple murders. Since 2018, Mr. Gee has served as Deputy Chief of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. He is a dedicated public servant with significant experience as a Federal prosecutor. He is the person for the job of U.S. attorney in Mississippi. Don't take it from me, take it from both Mississippi Senators, both Republicans, who approved his nomination. And yet he is being held up. Tara McGrath, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, devoted her legal career to keeping America safe. Ms. McGrath attended Boston College and the University of Michigan Law School before beginning her career as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate with the U.S. Marine Corps. She was honorably discharged after 6 years of service in the Marine Corps and then began serving as Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of California. During her time with the U.S. Attorney's Office, she received awards for her work on crime prevention and prisoner re-entry and handled drug importation, human trafficking cases, and gang prosecutions. Notably, Ms. McGrath led the investigation of a large-scale racketeering and drug-trafficking operation run by the Mexican cartels in San Diego County that resulted in 51 indictments against 40 defendants. How many times have we heard Members from the other side of the aisle talk about the scourge of fentanyl in the United States, the narcotics that are killing too many Americans every single day? What is going to stop that? A lot of different things. But one thing that has to be part of the equation is a criminal prosecutor who knows how to bring them to court and hold them responsible for the deadly narcotics and deaths across America. Why in the world would we stop Ms. McGrath from becoming a U.S. attorney in California, where she has a proven record of doing just that? By holding up her nomination for no specific reason, we are jeopardizing the safety of so many people who innocently expect us to do our duty. These are individuals--the ones she has prosecuted--responsible for drive-by shootings, child abduction attempts, meth distribution. Thanks to Ms. McGrath, they are off the streets. She recently returned to her military roots, served as a lawyer for the Marine Corps in Okinawa in Japan since 2019. She has represented America admirably. She will be an outstanding U.S. attorney. A third U.S. attorney nominee who is being held up by this Senator is Rebecca Lutzko. This one is interesting. She was nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, the home State of the Senator who is holding up her nomination. She is a longtime Federal prosecutor. She attended Boston University and Georgetown University Law before clerking on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. After 7 years in private practice, Ms. Lutzko joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio, handled cases involving prescription drug trafficking, gun crimes, and corruption. She eventually became Appellate Chief of the office's Criminal Division. For nearly a decade, Ms. Lutzko was the lead counsel in prosecuting an online pill-mill organization that illegally distributed well over 4 million pain pills to customers in all 50 States. She secured convictions on all 12 defendants in the case, and the organization was forced to surrender $4 million to the U.S. Government in criminal proceeds. She has served her office with distinction. She would be an outstanding U.S. attorney. April Perry, nominated to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, has significant experience in the private sector and as a Federal prosecutor. She attended Northwestern University and the Northwestern Law School and then clerked on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Then she served as Federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Illinois for over a decade, where she handled narcotics, gang violence, public corruption, and fraud cases. Notably, Ms. Perry specialized in child exploitation prosecutions and spent 6 years in the office as Project Safe Childhood Coordinator. As an assistant U.S. attorney, she investigated a former police officer who was convicted of raping a person he had arrested, and she secured the conviction of a former priest who was accused of sexually abusing more than 20 children. Ms. Perry has since served as Chief Ethics Officer for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and is currently working as the GE Healthcare a senior counsel for Global Investigations and Fraud and Abuse Prevention. She has the qualification and leadership abilities to serve as U.S. attorney with distinction. The interesting thing about all of these nominees that are being held up by one Senator from the other side of the aisle is the extraordinary records they have already written in their lives as criminal prosecutors. That is why Senators from both political parties in the U.S. Senate have said they are entitled to a promotion and entitled to an opportunity to lead these U.S. attorney's offices. By keeping these posts vacant, by refusing to give us a vote in the Senate on their nominations, we are jeopardizing the efforts of U.S. attorney's offices to control narcotics and crime. These men and women are on the frontline of keeping us safe in America. To hold up their nominations without any specific complaint about any one of these nominees is just unacceptable. We have a responsibility here to keep America safe. We can't keep them safe by using a political reason to hold up the nominations of these well-qualified people. If you are truly for law and order, if you are truly for law enforcement, if you want the prosecutors across America to keep us safe, then, for goodness' sake, lift the hold on these nominations. Mr. President, I am prepared to make a unanimous consent request at this point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 129, No. 266, No. 314, and No. 315; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleague says he is holding up these critical law enforcement positions because former President Trump is being treated unfairly. He promises to grind the Department of Justice to a halt in loyalty to his political ally. President Biden has continually demonstrated his respect for the Justice Department's independence. He has never interfered in any investigation into himself or his family. In contrast, President Trump treated the Justice Department as his personal law firm for 4 years, and he continues to undermine the rule of law by repeatedly threatening and making baseless accusations against judges, prosecutors, grand jurors, and witnesses. Former President Trump has been indicted four separate times--once, of course, a State indictment in Georgia. As the criminal charges mount, President Trump is becoming even more reckless in threatening judges, prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses. That is what inappropriate interference in our judicial system looks like. Instead of directing his concerns there, the Senator from Ohio is attacking law enforcement officers who want to keep our families and communities safe. In fact, one of the nominations that he is holding up, in argument that the Department of Justice has become a political tool, is a nomination which he notified the Judiciary Committee he supports--from his home State of Ohio. If this person is a political tool, why did he support this person for this nomination? He is holding him up today for political reasons. Despite the tough talk from the Senator of Ohio about crime in America and all the references I have to put up regularly with the other party making references to crime in the city of Chicago, I can't think of a better way to fight crime and protect communities than by confirming all these qualified nominees, especially one for the Northern District of Illinois. While the Senator from Ohio stands in the Senate talking about crime in my home State and other places, Ms. Perry could be leading Chicago's Firearms Trafficking Strike Force in cracking down on the illicit flow of illegal guns from other States into Chicago. The Chicago Police Department recovered more than 10,000 guns every year from criminal investigations for the last 2 years--10,000 guns taken off the streets. Ms. Perry could be helping to coordinate these efforts with ATF and other law enforcement agencies. Instead, thanks to my colleague's political position, our law enforcement agencies and U.S. attorneys are missing key officials who would otherwise be leading these efforts. If you are for law and order, if you are for safety in the streets, if you want to reduce gun violence, how in the world can you rationalize stopping the nominations of U.S. attorneys, the lead criminal prosecutors of the U.S. Department of Justice? I would like to give them the help and leadership they need, but the Senator from Ohio blocks it. These offices and the safety of the public they serve should not be subject to politics. These are highly qualified nominees who deserve to be swiftly confirmed. Until we do so, our law enforcement agencies in Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, and California are going to be limited on how they can fight crime. I really am saddened that this has become the new standard for Senate Republicans. One Senate Republican has stopped 300 military promotions for 6 months or longer. Deserving men and women, many of whom risked their life for our country and have served us so well, are being punished because of a political item on the agenda. As important as it may be, you have chosen the wrong targets to take your political revenge. The same thing is true when it comes to these nominees. For goodness' sake, give the Department of Justice the tools it needs to stop the spread of fentanyl and narcotics in the United States, to stop and slow down violent crime in the United States, to do something to protect children from being trafficked. To stop these nominations is to turn a blind eye to the reality that faces crime in our country. I can't explain it. I won't even try to. I just beg the Senator from Ohio to think twice. Grinding the U.S. Department of Justice to a halt, as you have promised, is nothing to be proud of. We will not be safer as a nation; we will not be better off in terms of the safety of our children; and this political strategy is, unfortunately, ill-intended and is going to have a result which is going to hurt a lot of innocent people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.